Re: Minimalist "validate" solution

Looks good to me (but then I am not "English" enough to fully understand 
the importance of this distinction)

Holger


On 5/11/2016 5:29, Karen Coyle wrote:
> diff: http://bit.ly/2em5UH3
>
> This shows how the minimalism solution would work, using section 3 
> Validation as the demo.
>
> This minimalist solution leaves the term "validation" in place, 
> defined as:
>
> "Validation is the process of determining whether a data graph, or 
> nodes in the data graph, is consistent with the constraints in a 
> shapes graph. Data graphs or nodes that are consistent with the 
> constraints in the shapes graph are said to "successfully validate"; 
> those that are not consistent are said to "not successfully validate".
>
> As you can see in the diff, places where "validates" was being used to 
> mean "does validate successfully" have been re-worded "successfully 
> validates". If this solution is acceptable to the group (perhaps we 
> can vote on it next time), then I can take a read through the entire 
> spec and make this change.
>
> Less minimalist solutions would require us to substitute another term 
> for "validation". Some possible terms are:
> - verification
> - evaluation
> - comparison
>
> Any of these would result in about 250 changes to the document. Those 
> changes are not difficult to make, but that would be a more 
> substantial change.
>
> kc

Received on Monday, 7 November 2016 04:42:01 UTC